<p>當一羣外國投資者在 2007 年向一家曾經領先的中國豬肉加工企業投資數百萬美元時，他們可能沒有預料到這筆投資會導致他們陷入長達數年的法律鬥爭。</p>
<p>投資者表示，他們實際上被鎖定在公司外，直到後來才發現他們所稱的欺詐性破產重組和一系列由公司創始人操控的模糊交易。</p>
<p>當他們試圖在中國主張股東權利時，不僅遭遇了公司的阻礙，還遇到了地方當局的障礙。</p>
<p>他們的經歷成為了一個警示故事，提醒外國投資者在投資中國公司時可能遇到的危險，以及他們在尋求地方當局幫助時可能面臨的困難。</p>
<h2>一個有希望的開始</h2>
<p>初鳴集團由石華山於 1990 年代末在遼寧省大連市創立，2007 年左右因其為業務擴展而承擔的債務，遭遇了現金流問題。</p>
<p>石華山是大連食品行業的一個有影響力的人物。他在多個行業協會擔任高級職務，甚至曾作為大連市最高政治諮詢機構的成員參與政治。</p>
<p>在地方政府的幫助下，一家外國投資者財團於 2007 年通過一家註冊在英屬維爾京羣島的公司向石的公司投資了近 1540 萬美元。根據《財新》看到的股東名單，投資者中包括美國和加拿大的公司，如 Hunter Wise Financial Group 和 Redwood Capital。</p>
<p>儘管初鳴面臨財務問題，投資者仍然相信值得支持。</p>
<p>“當時，初鳴在大連的市場份額超過 50%，在整個東北市場享有良好的聲譽，” 投資者之一的股東的兒子金正鑫説，他後來深度參與了他們的法庭鬥爭。</p>
<p>隨後發生了一系列複雜的公司操作，其中初鳴的三個關鍵子公司——肉類加工、食品和銷售——最終歸入一家名為大連珍寶投資諮詢有限公司（PSIC）的公司，其母公司將石華山和外國投資者都視為股東。</p>
<p>“外國股東願意作為純粹的財務投資者進行投資，而不干預運營，更不用説試圖爭奪公司的控制權，” 金正鑫説。</p>
<p>目標是赴美上市。這一目標在 2007 年晚些時候實現，當時 PSIC 的母公司與一家在場外交易所上市的美國公司 Energroup Holdings 完成了反向併購。</p>
<p>石華山被任命為 Energroup 的董事長，領導一個由七名成員組成的董事會，其中包括他的四位合夥人。由於石華山在初鳴經營多年，對豬肉業務的許多方面都很熟悉，外國投資者對他充滿信心，金正鑫告訴《財新》。</p>
<h2>馬拉松式的法律鬥爭</h2>
<p>這種信任並沒有持續多久。僅僅幾年後，外國投資者開始感到警報聲響起。2010 年，Energroup 停止了與美國證券交易委員會的報告。分紅被暫停。</p>
<p>事實證明，石華山在反向併購後不久就開始進行幕後操作，金正鑫説，驅逐獨立董事並解僱投資者聘請的財務人員。</p>
<p>經過多年的多次失敗嘗試直接與石華山接觸以獲取公司財務健康狀況的信息，投資者在 2014 年發起了將成為馬拉松式法律鬥爭的行動。</p>
<p>爭取信息的鬥爭揭露了石華山的一系列背叛。在海外的法庭程序後，投資者在 2015 年贏得了一場重大勝利，美國法院授予他們對 Energroup 的控制權。</p>
<p>這一勝利導致更多關於石華山在未通知投資者的情況下進行的操控的發現。根據投資者提供的聲明，這些操控包括使用金坤（即金正鑫的父親）的偽造簽名來簽署文件，改變 PSIC 的董事會和投資公司的股權結構。</p>
<p>與此同時，PSIC 的銀行記錄顯示，到 2021 年中期，收到外國投資者最初 1540 萬美元投資的賬户中僅剩不到 4 萬元人民幣（7300 新元）。</p>
<p>幾份股權轉讓協議顯示，2014 年，PSIC 同意將其在食品和銷售子公司的全部股份以 1000 萬元的價格出售給石華山及其妻子。金正鑫表示，投資者從未被告知這些交易，而 PSIC 的銀行記錄顯示沒有收到相應的付款。</p>
<h2>重組之謎</h2>
<p>然而，許多投資者最大的謎團是 2019 年初鳴及其最初控制的三家子公司的破產重組公告。</p>
<p>投資者甚至在次年才得知這一公告。</p>
<p>金正鑫將這一重組視為一種空殼遊戲——並不是由債權人提出，而是由債務人自己提出的。</p>
<p>對於投資者來説，重組的真正原因——如果有的話——仍然是個謎，因為他們無法獲得與此事相關的材料。</p>
<p>金正鑫暗示，這四家公司在申請破產重組時可能誇大了其負債。他引用了大連中級人民法院最初確認的負債與法院指定管理員審查後同一法院後來確認的負債之間大約 120 億元的差異。</p>
<p>自 2020 年以來，投資者審查重組文件的嘗試在遼寧遭遇了障礙，包括來自地方市場監管機構和法院的阻礙。</p>
<p>例如，在那年晚些時候，金坤向地方市場監管機構申請註冊 PSIC 的公司註冊變更，《財新》看到的投資者聲明顯示。然而，該請求因官僚技術問題延遲了幾個月，投資者表示。</p>
<p>聲明稱，這一延誤有效阻止了外國投資者在破產重組程序的關鍵階段投票，給他們的利益造成了實質性損害。</p>
<h2>碰壁</h2>
<p>投資者聲稱，肉類加工公司的盈利業務——在 2014 年交易後唯一剩下的楚鳴品牌公司——於 2017 年外包給了由施團隊設立的貿易公司。</p>
<p>該貿易公司於 2021 年以 100 萬元的價格出售給了大連的誠三集團。</p>
<p>根據案件文件和《財新》的採訪，誠三的收購發生在其退出肉類加工公司的破產重組之後，按照重組投資者的要求，它本應投資近 9000 萬元。</p>
<p>投資者聲明稱，此舉是對肉類加工公司資產的 “惡意轉讓”，並補充説這是法院指定的管理人忽視的重要事實。</p>
<p>現在被稱為 SGLA 律師事務所的管理人拒絕對此事發表評論。</p>
<p>在 2022 年的裁決中，法院駁回了 PSIC 對審查肉類加工公司會計憑證的要求。</p>
<p>金正鑫辯稱，外國投資者無法確定肉類加工公司的業務到底發生了什麼，除非他們能夠查看相關記錄。</p>
<p>在上訴該決定後，PSIC 贏得了審查公司會計憑證的權利，但遼寧省高級人民法院將審查時間限制為 15 天。</p>
<p>考慮到公司有超過十年的記錄，投資者認為這一時間限制不合理。</p>
<p>然而，這一點最終變得無關緊要。金正鑫表示，在裁決發佈時，肉類加工廠已被誠三收購，PSIC 無法訪問記錄。</p>
<p>除此之外，外國投資者仍不清楚他們最初的 1540 萬美元投資發生了什麼。在對法院指定的管理人的訴訟中，大連法院駁回了投資者獲取肉類加工公司債務登記文件的請求。</p>
<p>投資者在執法方面也沒有得到太多幫助。金坤在 2021 年提出了指控挪用公款和偽造的刑事投訴，但警方後來因證據不足拒絕立案。儘管該決定在複審後被撤銷，但根據投資者的説法，該案件自此沒有取得任何實質性進展。</p>
<p>在公司破產清算結束幾年後，監管和登記記錄顯示其仍然活躍。對於投資者來説，這使得整個事件更加令人煩惱。</p>
<p>“整個破產過程最令人震驚的方面是，從肉類加工公司的破產重組案被法院受理的那天起，到清算完成，再到今天，該公司沒有一天停止運營，” 投資者聲明中寫道。</p>
<p>如果是這樣，他們就問為什麼他們沒有權利獲得一部分利潤。“如果公司在清算完成後繼續運營，那麼它的運營利潤去了哪裏？” 聲明問道。CAIXIN GLOBAL</p>

ENHD

<p>一羣在 2007 年投資了近 1540 萬美元於中國豬肉加工商楚鳴集團的外國投資者，因發現公司創始人石華山的欺詐行為而面臨漫長的法律鬥爭。最初對投資持樂觀態度的投資者在主張權利時遇到了障礙，最終被鎖出公司。儘管與 Energroup Holdings 成功進行了反向併購，投資者卻發現自己被誤導和背叛，導致 2015 年在法庭上獲勝，揭露了更多的不當行為。此案突顯了外國投資者在中國面臨的風險</p>

<p>WHEN a group of foreign investors put millions of dollars into a once-leading Chinese pork processor in 2007, they probably did not expect that the investment would lead them into a years-long legal battle.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>當一羣外國投資者在 2007 年向一家曾經領先的中國豬肉加工企業投資數百萬美元時，他們可能沒有預料到這筆投資會導致他們陷入長達數年的法律鬥爭。</p>
</div><p>The investors said they were effectively locked out of the company and only later discovered what they called a fraudulent bankruptcy restructuring and a series of murky transactions orchestrated by the company’s founder.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者表示，他們實際上被鎖定在公司外，直到後來才發現他們所稱的欺詐性破產重組和一系列由公司創始人操控的模糊交易。</p>
</div><p>When they tried to assert their shareholder rights in China, they encountered obstacles not only from the company but also from local authorities.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>當他們試圖在中國主張股東權利時，不僅遭遇了公司的阻礙，還遇到了地方當局的障礙。</p>
</div><p>Their ordeal stands as a cautionary tale about the perils that foreign investors can encounter when investing in Chinese companies, as well as the difficulties they can face getting help from local authorities.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他們的經歷成為了一個警示故事，提醒外國投資者在投資中國公司時可能遇到的危險，以及他們在尋求地方當局幫助時可能面臨的困難。</p>
</div><h2>A promising start</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>一個有希望的開始</h2>
</div><p>Founded in the late 1990s by Shi Huashan in Dalian, Liaoning province, Chuming Group ran into cash-flow problems around 2007, partly due to the debt it took on to acquire land for business expansion.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>初鳴集團由石華山於 1990 年代末在遼寧省大連市創立，2007 年左右因其為業務擴展而承擔的債務，遭遇了現金流問題。</p>
</div><p>Shi was an influential figure in Dalian’s food industry. He held senior roles at several trade bodies, and even did a stint in politics as a member of Dalian’s top political advisory body.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>石華山是大連食品行業的一個有影響力的人物。他在多個行業協會擔任高級職務，甚至曾作為大連市最高政治諮詢機構的成員參與政治。</p>
</div><p>With the help of the local government, a consortium of foreign investors invested nearly US$15.4 million in Shi’s company in 2007 through a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Among the investors were US and Canadian companies, including Hunter Wise Financial Group and Redwood Capital, according to a shareholder list seen by Caixin.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在地方政府的幫助下，一家外國投資者財團於 2007 年通過一家註冊在英屬維爾京羣島的公司向石的公司投資了近 1540 萬美元。根據《財新》看到的股東名單，投資者中包括美國和加拿大的公司，如 Hunter Wise Financial Group 和 Redwood Capital。</p>
</div><p>Despite Chuming’s financial issues, the investors believed it was worth backing.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>儘管初鳴面臨財務問題，投資者仍然相信值得支持。</p>
</div><p>“At the time, Chuming held more than 50 per cent of the market share in Dalian, and had a good reputation across the entire north-eastern China market,” said Jin Zhengxin, the son of a shareholder in one of the investors who would later become deeply involved in their court battle.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“當時，初鳴在大連的市場份額超過 50%，在整個東北市場享有良好的聲譽，” 投資者之一的股東的兒子金正鑫説，他後來深度參與了他們的法庭鬥爭。</p>
</div><p>A convoluted series of corporate manoeuvres followed, in which three key Chuming subsidiaries – for meat processing, food and sales – ended up in a company called Dalian Precious Sheen Investments Consulting (PSIC), whose parent company counted both Shi and the foreign investors as shareholders.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>隨後發生了一系列複雜的公司操作，其中初鳴的三個關鍵子公司——肉類加工、食品和銷售——最終歸入一家名為大連珍寶投資諮詢有限公司（PSIC）的公司，其母公司將石華山和外國投資者都視為股東。</p>
</div><p>“The foreign shareholders were willing to invest purely as financial investors, without interfering in operations, let alone trying to compete for control of the company,” Jin said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“外國股東願意作為純粹的財務投資者進行投資，而不干預運營，更不用説試圖爭奪公司的控制權，” 金正鑫説。</p>
</div><p>The goal was to go public in the US. That took place later in 2007, when PSIC’s parent completed a reverse merger with Energroup Holdings, an American company traded on an over-the-counter exchange.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>目標是赴美上市。這一目標在 2007 年晚些時候實現，當時 PSIC 的母公司與一家在場外交易所上市的美國公司 Energroup Holdings 完成了反向併購。</p>
</div><p>Shi was appointed chairman of Energroup, leading a seven-member board that included four of his associates. The foreign investors had a lot of faith in Shi because he had operated Chuming for years and was familiar with many aspects of the pork business, Jin told Caixin.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>石華山被任命為 Energroup 的董事長，領導一個由七名成員組成的董事會，其中包括他的四位合夥人。由於石華山在初鳴經營多年，對豬肉業務的許多方面都很熟悉，外國投資者對他充滿信心，金正鑫告訴《財新》。</p>
</div><h2>Marathon legal battle</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>馬拉松式的法律鬥爭</h2>
</div><p>That trust didn’t last. Just a few years later, alarm bells began to go off for the foreign investors. In 2010, Energroup discontinued its reporting with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Dividends were halted.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這種信任並沒有持續多久。僅僅幾年後，外國投資者開始感到警報聲響起。2010 年，Energroup 停止了與美國證券交易委員會的報告。分紅被暫停。</p>
</div><p>As it turned out, Shi had started making behind-the-scenes moves shortly after the reverse merger, Jin said, driving out independent directors and dismissing financial staff hired by the investors.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>事實證明，石華山在反向併購後不久就開始進行幕後操作，金正鑫説，驅逐獨立董事並解僱投資者聘請的財務人員。</p>
</div><p>After years of repeated failed attempts to engage directly with Shi to obtain information about the company’s financial health, the investors in 2014 launched what would become a marathon legal battle.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>經過多年的多次失敗嘗試直接與石華山接觸以獲取公司財務健康狀況的信息，投資者在 2014 年發起了將成為馬拉松式法律鬥爭的行動。</p>
</div><p>The fight for information uncovered a series of betrayals by Shi. After court proceedings overseas, the investors won a major victory in 2015 when a US court granted them control of Energroup.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>爭取信息的鬥爭揭露了石華山的一系列背叛。在海外的法庭程序後，投資者在 2015 年贏得了一場重大勝利，美國法院授予他們對 Energroup 的控制權。</p>
</div><p>The victory led to more discoveries of the machinations that Shi had carried out without informing investors. They included using forged signatures of Jin Kun, Jin Zhengxin’s father, to sign off on documents that changed PSIC’s board of directors and altered the equity structure of invested companies, according to a statement provided by investors.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這一勝利導致更多關於石華山在未通知投資者的情況下進行的操控的發現。根據投資者提供的聲明，這些操控包括使用金坤（即金正鑫的父親）的偽造簽名來簽署文件，改變 PSIC 的董事會和投資公司的股權結構。</p>
</div><p>Meanwhile, PSIC’s bank records showed that by mid-2021, less than 40,000 yuan (S$7,300) remained in the account that received the foreign investors’ initial US$15.4 million investment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>與此同時，PSIC 的銀行記錄顯示，到 2021 年中期，收到外國投資者最初 1540 萬美元投資的賬户中僅剩不到 4 萬元人民幣（7300 新元）。</p>
</div><p>Several share transfer agreements showed that in 2014, PSIC had agreed to sell its entire stakes in its food and sales subsidiaries to Shi and his wife, for a total of 10 million yuan. Jin Zhengxin said investors were never informed about the transactions, and PSIC’s bank records showed that no corresponding payments were ever received.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>幾份股權轉讓協議顯示，2014 年，PSIC 同意將其在食品和銷售子公司的全部股份以 1000 萬元的價格出售給石華山及其妻子。金正鑫表示，投資者從未被告知這些交易，而 PSIC 的銀行記錄顯示沒有收到相應的付款。</p>
</div><h2>The restructuring mystery</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>重組之謎</h2>
</div><p>The biggest puzzle for many investors, however, was the 2019 announcement of the bankruptcy restructuring of Chuming and the three subsidiaries it initially controlled.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，許多投資者最大的謎團是 2019 年初鳴及其最初控制的三家子公司的破產重組公告。</p>
</div><p>The investors didn’t even know about the announcement until the following year.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者甚至在次年才得知這一公告。</p>
</div><p>Jin Zhengxin viewed the restructuring – filed not by creditors but by the debtors themselves – as a shell game.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>金正鑫將這一重組視為一種空殼遊戲——並不是由債權人提出，而是由債務人自己提出的。</p>
</div><p>For the investors, the true cause of the restructuring – if there was one – remains a mystery because they have been unable to obtain related materials about the matter.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>對於投資者來説，重組的真正原因——如果有的話——仍然是個謎，因為他們無法獲得與此事相關的材料。</p>
</div><p>Jin Zhengxin suggested that the four companies may have inflated their liabilities when filing for bankruptcy restructuring. He cited a roughly 12 billion yuan discrepancy between the liabilities initially recognised by the Dalian Intermediate People’s Court and those later confirmed by the same court following a review by the court-appointed administrator.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>金正鑫暗示，這四家公司在申請破產重組時可能誇大了其負債。他引用了大連中級人民法院最初確認的負債與法院指定管理員審查後同一法院後來確認的負債之間大約 120 億元的差異。</p>
</div><p>Since 2020, the investors’ attempts to review the restructuring documents have encountered obstacles in Liaoning, including from the local market regulator and courts.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>自 2020 年以來，投資者審查重組文件的嘗試在遼寧遭遇了障礙，包括來自地方市場監管機構和法院的阻礙。</p>
</div><p>For example, late that year, Jin Kun applied to the local market watchdog to register for a change in PSIC’s corporate registration, an investor statement seen by Caixin showed. The request, however, was delayed for several months over bureaucratic technicalities, investors said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>例如，在那年晚些時候，金坤向地方市場監管機構申請註冊 PSIC 的公司註冊變更，《財新》看到的投資者聲明顯示。然而，該請求因官僚技術問題延遲了幾個月，投資者表示。</p>
</div><p>The delay effectively prevented foreign investors from voting at a critical stage of the bankruptcy restructuring proceedings, causing material harm to their interests, the statement said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>聲明稱，這一延誤有效阻止了外國投資者在破產重組程序的關鍵階段投票，給他們的利益造成了實質性損害。</p>
</div><h2>Hitting a brick wall</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>碰壁</h2>
</div><p>The investors alleged that the profitable operations of the meat processing company – the only Chuming-branded company left with PSIC after the 2014 deals – had been outsourced in 2017 to a trading company set up by Shi’s team.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者聲稱，肉類加工公司的盈利業務——在 2014 年交易後唯一剩下的楚鳴品牌公司——於 2017 年外包給了由施團隊設立的貿易公司。</p>
</div><p>The trading company was later sold to Dalian-based Chengsan Group for one million yuan in 2021.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>該貿易公司於 2021 年以 100 萬元的價格出售給了大連的誠三集團。</p>
</div><p>Chengsan’s acquisition took place after it withdrew from the meat processor’s bankruptcy restructuring, under which it would have been required to invest nearly 90 million yuan as a restructuring investor, according to case documents and Caixin interviews.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根據案件文件和《財新》的採訪，誠三的收購發生在其退出肉類加工公司的破產重組之後，按照重組投資者的要求，它本應投資近 9000 萬元。</p>
</div><p>The investor statement called the move a “malicious transfer” of the meat processor’s assets, adding that it was an important fact ignored by the court-appointed administrator.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者聲明稱，此舉是對肉類加工公司資產的 “惡意轉讓”，並補充説這是法院指定的管理人忽視的重要事實。</p>
</div><p>The administrator, now known as SGLA Law Firm, has refused to comment on the matter.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>現在被稱為 SGLA 律師事務所的管理人拒絕對此事發表評論。</p>
</div><p>In a 2022 ruling, the court rejected a demand from PSIC to review the meat processing company’s accounting vouchers.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 2022 年的裁決中，法院駁回了 PSIC 對審查肉類加工公司會計憑證的要求。</p>
</div><p>Jin Zhengxin argued that the foreign investors could not ascertain what was really going on with the meat processor’s business unless they could see the records in question.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>金正鑫辯稱，外國投資者無法確定肉類加工公司的業務到底發生了什麼，除非他們能夠查看相關記錄。</p>
</div><p>After appealing the decision, PSIC won the right to review the company’s accounting vouchers, but the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court limited the time allowed for the review to 15 days.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在上訴該決定後，PSIC 贏得了審查公司會計憑證的權利，但遼寧省高級人民法院將審查時間限制為 15 天。</p>
</div><p>Given that the company had more than a decade of records, the investors considered the time limit unreasonable.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>考慮到公司有超過十年的記錄，投資者認為這一時間限制不合理。</p>
</div><p>The point turned out to be moot, however. By the time the ruling was issued, the meat processor’s factory had been acquired by Chengsan, leaving PSIC without access to the records, Jin Zhengxin said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，這一點最終變得無關緊要。金正鑫表示，在裁決發佈時，肉類加工廠已被誠三收購，PSIC 無法訪問記錄。</p>
</div><p>On top of all that, the foreign investors were still unclear about what happened to their initial US$15.4 million investment. In their lawsuit against the court-appointed administrator, the Dalian court rejected the investors’ request for access to the meat processing company’s debt registration documents.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>除此之外，外國投資者仍不清楚他們最初的 1540 萬美元投資發生了什麼。在對法院指定的管理人的訴訟中，大連法院駁回了投資者獲取肉類加工公司債務登記文件的請求。</p>
</div><p>The investors didn’t get much help from law enforcement either. Jin Kun filed a criminal complaint in 2021 alleging embezzlement and forgery, but police later declined to open a case, citing a lack of evidence. Although that decision was later revoked on review, the case has seen no meaningful progress since, according to the investors.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>投資者在執法方面也沒有得到太多幫助。金坤在 2021 年提出了指控挪用公款和偽造的刑事投訴，但警方後來因證據不足拒絕立案。儘管該決定在複審後被撤銷，但根據投資者的説法，該案件自此沒有取得任何實質性進展。</p>
</div><p>Several years after the conclusion of the company’s bankruptcy liquidation, regulatory and registration records show it remains active. For investors, that’s what makes the whole saga so vexing.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在公司破產清算結束幾年後，監管和登記記錄顯示其仍然活躍。對於投資者來説，這使得整個事件更加令人煩惱。</p>
</div><p>“The most astonishing aspect of the entire bankruptcy process is that from the day the meat processing company’s bankruptcy restructuring case was accepted by the court, through the completion of liquidation and up to today, the company has not suspended operations for a single day,” the investor statement read.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“整個破產過程最令人震驚的方面是，從肉類加工公司的破產重組案被法院受理的那天起，到清算完成，再到今天，該公司沒有一天停止運營，” 投資者聲明中寫道。</p>
</div><p>And if that’s the case, they ask why they’re not entitled to a portion of the profits. “If the company continued operating after the completion of the liquidation, then where did its operating profits go?” the statement asked. CAIXIN GLOBAL</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果是這樣，他們就問為什麼他們沒有權利獲得一部分利潤。“如果公司在清算完成後繼續運營，那麼它的運營利潤去了哪裏？” 聲明問道。CAIXIN GLOBAL</p>
</div>

一筆價值 1500 萬美元的中國豬肉交易如何演變成外國投資者的警示案例